Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by VivaRevolution, May 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM.
Of course you think we would do such as thing, but of course that is why you are utterly wrong.
Do you really believe that Putin or Assad are jerking off to atrocities?
Please, explain that one to me.
No, but I believe they are willing to use them as means to an end.
Lol, we are the only nation ever to use nukes.
As I said, if it was strategically neccassary, we would have gassed 60 million.
So are we.
Number of countries Iran has invaded in the past 250 years: 0
Number of countries Saddam invaded in 25 years: 2 minimum
1 million Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war. A war started by Iraq when they invaded Iran. We supported this action in every way possible. Then, we played both sides to some degree to maximize the damage done. Iran has never been dangerous to anyone except for Israel's dreams of regional hegemony.
How many did the nukes kill? How many were estimated to die in an attack on the Japanese mainland? Really simple math.
No, we are not. If that was even remotely true we would not have had the issue we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many would die in a war between Iran and Israel? How many if Israel decided to use nuclear weapons?
What does that have to do with anything? Unless, of course, you're trying to prove that Israel is a much more dangerous country than Iran. To which, I would wholeheartedly agree.
Lets talk about carpet bombing, vietnam, iraq, afganistan, our military adventurism from manifest destiny to today.
We have been at war as a nation almost throughout our entire history, and I count 3 just wars. WWII, the civil war, and the American revolution.
Are you sure you really want to start counting the death toll, and comparing it?
I never said that.
I said that our participation in the Iraq war is viewed as a national embarrassment, and actually there is still a commission reviewing the legality of it (it's shut down everytime the political party that initiated our participation in the war gets into government, hence why it's taking so long).
No one is holding a grudge towards the soldiers specifically, it's not their fault. But akin to Vietnam war vets, they certainly don't feel much pride in their participation either, because of how the war and our participation is viewed in danish society.
Okay that makes more sense.
The whole idea of supporting Iraq in an Iraq vs Iran conflict was because Iran was and is far more powerful and likely yo start a war with Israel. That would have brought about more destruction and loss of life then the Iran v Iraq conflicts.
Lets talk about them.
Carpet bombing in WWII was controversial, but was seen as a way to end the war quickly and save lives on our side. Vietnam and Korea were the stop the spread of Communism, which was seen as a treat to the world. Not to mention communists regimes records killing. Afghanistan was response to a attack, and seen as a way to prevent future attacks. Iraq, however misguided, was seen as getting Saddam Hussein, out of power. His atrocities were well documented.
And Assad killed people to keep his government in power.
They are all rationalizations for atrocities. Some stink more then others, but now we are to a game of semantics.
There are no such things as conspiracies.
None of those examples that we discussed was to keep the US government in power. We are not playing a game of semantics, I'm pointing out differences in situations. Difference you simply are incapable or unwilling to see. As I said, you can't see the forest through the trees.
Mark Zuckerberg lets ISIS use Facebook to recruit, and get the message out to foreign agents of theirs.